SanemIt looks really great.
What’s the latest news on X-47B ?
how long until it get tested in Afghanistan or schedule otherwise ?
they succeeded in tanking the other day, using a surrogate. that’s pretty huge, as it proves the system can do that
I wouldn’t except an oversees deployment soon, considering the effort and money the Navy is putting into this I doubt they’ll want to risk losing them. they also seem a lot more experimental compared to the Predator C Avenger, which is basically a stealthy jet version of the Reaper, and so will be a lot more mature and proven in capacities and payloads
SanemGreat question. But I think it requires the correct comparison. I don’t think it’s completely appropriate to compare current UAVs with legacy combat jets which have multirole capabilities. I think current UAVs have found a niche role as recon and light ground attack roles, hence, their suitability for COIN ops. Undoubtedly, as UAS technology advances, their roles will expand to more “traditional” areas of combat jets. But for the meantime, I think they are great COIN platforms, as shown in Iraq and AfPak.
I agree that comparing them will be extremely difficult; as big a UAV jockey as I am, they still need to prove themselves fully
but as I pointed out, I think they’ve already proven themselves in “traditional” areas of operation, considering their performance over Libya, and their succes as recon aircraft since back in the first Gulf War
Israel also used them with great succes in the 1980’s in the ECM role, and will probably use plenty if they attack Iran (and I fear they will soon enough)
they were hardly used over Libya, probably because they were too valuable in Afghanistan, but I believe it’s also because Air Forces don’t want to prove that they can take over from manned aircraft in many roles, they’d start talking about replacing F-35’s with Predators 😀
It didn’t open for me, but anyway why don’t you like Global Hawk ?
I don’t think the problem is so much with the aircraft, as it is with the payload? which is a shame considering their superb concept design of the Firebired’s plug and play architecture, combined with the Global Hawks impressive design that would provide an excellent and multi-functional aircraft
SanemX-47B top view
SanemA UCAV which can drop half a dozen small bombs, fly home & load up again, over & over again, is cheaper & more effective in the long run.
We hope !
interesting point, have UAV’s so far proven to be more effective and efficient in their missions than manned counter-parts?
I think the problem here is the difference in aircraft: it’s very hard to compare different costs and capabilities, for example the Global Hawk compared to the U-2, the Predator compared to the F-15, or an X-47B compared to an F-35C
one might compare optionally manned aircraft, but then you somehow have to factor in the extra cost for satellite links etc, although you can argument that this technology is used on most modern manned aircraft
but if take say a Libya (soon Syria?) scenario, and you assume an air defence that is limited to shoulder-mounted SAMs, then I’d say it’s pretty obvious that a Reaper class aircraft can fulfil most missions manned aircraft are currently used for at 10% of the price (or less, considering the pilot at riks)
The trend seems to go the way of “optionally” piloted aircraft though.
I agree, but I think this is a way to introduce them into the public air spaces, something which until now was impossible (in some countries anyway), and often means you can make exisisting designs unmanned, greatly reducing costs
Sanem@ Mildave, I agree that the weapons used are key. the current habit of killing sheep herders with anti-tank missiles, or sending out a Mirage 2000 which just one bomb is absurd. what is needed are small, precise and cheap weapons
the miniature weapons currently being developed are a start, but still too expensive for my taste. my suggestion would be radio-guided bombs or even grenades, that emit a signal so the launch aircraft can track them and guide them. very cheap, effective and great against opponents that lack advanced ECM (which is most of them these days)
that’ll still leave plenty of budget for weapons to be used against peer opponents
CATOBAR needs for both the UK and France are certainly a common ground for future projects, although the US will be more than happy than intervene there (F-18, F-35C if they can get it to work, X-47B)
but I do fear EU carriers will get cut these next few years
On the Global Hawk:
I can understand the USAF cutting the Global Hawk considering the cost
but in the war and peace missions of today, information is the most valuable commodity. for $100 million you basically get a JSTARS with a global reach and a 24h endurance, which is actually very cheap
an F-35 costs about the same and will (hopefully) be very capable, but becomes pretty useless when it doesn’t know where to look for its targets
SanemWhich only affirms the Soviet logic of focussing on IR missile load-outs instead of radar guided BVR and having IR R-27 variants as well as the R-73.
indeed, as well as helmet mounted target sights, IR sensors, VTC…
however I believe that the WVR strategy is pretty much done for: as technology becomes increasingly better, it is possible to securely identify a target from an increasingly larger distance
stealth will counter this trend to a degree, but as soon as you are detected for even a moment (when engaging an enemy for example), an oppponent will probably be able to track and thus attack you
if you remain outside the enemy’s missile envelope then you can disengage (the F-22’s preferred strategy), but if you’re fighting at short range you will be immediatly targetted by multiple enemies as data links put you in the sight of every fireing computer in the area
I believe that in the future this will only get worse and short ranged combat will by definition equal destruction, as HOBS missiles and lasers will kill anything within range, regardless of stealth, evasive manoeuvres or counter-measures
and in time even BVR will become always more dangerous
which is why I’m for UAVs for air combat: cheap ones to swarm the enemy with sheer expendable numbers, and more expensive stealth UCAVs to exploit enemy weak points, attacking AWACS, tankers, airfields and setting up cross fires
Sanemanother article
4 way does make it more difficult to work, but also spreads the costs and guarantees a bigger offset. when the Typhoon wins in India, that’ll give France a serious motivation to avoid another situation like that
I figure the Typhoon and Rafale can take over most tasks of the Tornado/Mirage 2000, and there won’t be money for much more. but a UCAV adds a number of interesting advantages, like stealth, endurance, low cost… still making it an interesting option
especially if Europe, in the light of serious budget cuts and a resurgent Russia, finally decides to fuse its defence, skywise at least, greatly reducing the number of combat aircraft needed. then the combination of Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen and UCAVs + UAVs will suffice
Sanemthat puts the UK and France only a year behind the X-47B and Phantom Ray, pretty impressive
I am very curious how a cooperation between the two nations will work: both BAe and Dassault will have the needed experience, but that risks them both wanting program leadership. can they avoid another Typhoon/Rafale mess?
will EADS come to its senses and join in? if they really have as much experience as they say they’ll have a lot to contribute, and it’ll lock in Spain and Germany as future buyers
and with the F-35 looking more every day like it’ll crash and burn, all these countries will be looking for something else to replace their 3rd generation attack aircraft
I’d suggest also developping a CTOL and STOVL version, but somehow I don’t think they’ll go for it :rolleyes: better to develop the UCAV, and than transplant systems (engines, electronics, design) to CTOL/STOVL derivatives?
Sanemtrue, UAVs make it politically much easier to attack, as people don’t care much for it if they crash
that said this isn’t completely about UAVs as such. if there wouldn’t be UAVs, the USAF would be using manned aircraft with pretty much the same effect, but they’d actually cause more civilian deaths, because they have a lot less endurance and thus less time to verify a target. if anything, UAVs decrease loss of civilian lives and collateral damage
for example last year there was the Apache helicopter that fired on Pakistani soldiers. if it had been a UAV, the operators would have just taken their time to study the target, contact Pakistani officials, and make sure the targets are truely hostile. with an endurance of up to 24 hours and no pilot to risk, you can do that. a manned aircraft simply doesn’t have time for that, especially when you risk being shot at, it’s shoot first, ask questions later
SanemDid they just take a hobby plane, painted over the window, and called it Unmanned ?
That was UN-imaginative
well, the first fighter and ground attack aircraft were recon aircraft that simply carried rifles and grenades
using an existing design as a basis greatly reduces cost in every way (proven reliability, existing facilities and logistics…)
a manned version of the dominator goes for $600,000, so I’m guessing a UAV version would be $2 million (a lot of it in sensors and such)
by comparison, a Predator UAV costs about $10 million and has similar performance (except for weapons load), and only 1 engine
so if you want something to patrol your seas or your inland, this is an extremely low cost, high performance and safe solution
Sanemthis will only get worse, Europe and the US have yet to feel the full effect of their financial situations
but the problem is pretty obvious when you spend 120 million per fighter jet and billions on carriers which you can’t even use
after decades of wasteful big budgets, it’s time to face reality, and it won’t be pretty
which is why I’m for UAVs (if we’ll be able to afford that much). for the ground attack role in modern wars, where the West has total air supremacy, you don’t need gold plated aircraft that cost 4000 per hour, and possibly extremely risky recovery missions if you lose the pilot. a handful of these will suffice, given their multi-role capabilities, as a reserve on overwatch to cover more fragile aircraft and to take out any strong opposition. but other than that, you can use UAVs, costing 10% to buy and operate compared to a jet, but with the same or superior mission effectiveness
the same goes for helicopters. they’re nice to provide video when a cruise ship tips over, but a basic UAV can provide the same capabilities at a fraction of the cost. or when you’re hunting tanks, you can use UAVs as the eyes and teeth of the manned attack helicopter. this way a few manned helicopters should be kept for their certain missions and operational control, but most of the work should be done by UAVs
SanemPerhaps because the US operates with a range of Black UAV projects (removed from what the UCAS-D is trying to achieve) whereas the UK is approaching the Taranis as a non-production demonstrator which will have plenty of hush hush kit on it….?
interesting point, BAe has a monopoly on UCAVs in England, its budgets are guaranteed
I’m also curious on the differences with the US/French programs, does BAe use less off the shelf technology and more advanced systems? they hinted at extremely automated processes with the Mantis
Sanemseems the USAF knows what caused the RQ-170 crash but won’t talk about it (apparantly it wasn’t Iran). more interestingly, they’re continuing operations, which would suggest they don’t fear another crash
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-usa-drone-iran-idUSTRE80C1MD20120113
Sanemyes, job security is a big thing. where politicians mostly have to care about the public, civil servants only have to care for their own jobs, and those of their colleagues
with all air force generals being former fighter jets, no one wants to be blamed for putting the new generation of pilots out of work
that and they all want the fancy toys, I imagine those generals drinking together, one going “I have the F-35, the most expensive and advanced fighter jet in history” and the other guy going “I have toy aircraft”. you’d be surprised how big a factor ego is in these things
Armies & air forces also have a real concern that too much focus on COIN will reduce their ability to face high-end threats, & therefore leave their countries vulnerable if one emerges.
indeed, but the same arguments apply, are fast jets really better against high end threats than for example UAVs, not to mention UCAVs?
how well will an F-35 or a Typhoon hold up against a T-50? or against the S-500? or against an insurgent with SA-23 missiles, hiding near your air base?
because you’ll be investing a lot of money trying to defeat something that’s better than you in almost every way, at a similar or (much) lower cost. the Russians lost the cold war this way
UAVs are a way to break out of this cycle of wasteful spending, because you can lose plenty and still come out on top
SanemWestern Air Forces insist on cutting back on COIN because they don’t like it, for the same reason ground armies don’t like it: it’s difficult to do
you see, what armies and air forces want is a powerful opponent whom they can outpower, in a fast and fancy victory, with minimal losses and for as much money as their governments are willing to spend. they want heroic combats between tanks and fighter jets and battleships where they can prove their superiority
it’s what any (government) institution wants: receive a lot of money, have great succes, with a minimal effort
what militaries don’t want is to spend years and years on end chasing shadows, while having their strength sapped continually in a series of small battles that attack them at their weakest point, which is exactly what guerilla and insurgency tactics are all about
and in today’s world it’s the only kind of warfare left, because peer warfare is simply too devestating to our valuable economies. war with say North Korea, Iran or China will potentially, if not definitely destroy our own countries as well, one way or another
insurgent, guerilla and undercover warfare on the other hand are a perfect alternative: it was a serious problem for the Germans in WW2, the French in Korea, the US in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, and now for the West in Iraq and Afghanistan. yet it is a relatively cheap way of warfare for whomever is supporting it (and they all have/are, be they Europe, the US, Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Israel…), it’s just a matter of supporting certain groups with weapons, cash and ammunition and letting them fight your enemies for you, while you sit back and have full deniability
and in the last century of insurgent/guerilla warfare, there has always been a serious need for ways to fight this type of enemy, be it with local forces, slow prop aircraft, helicopters… but now for the first time in history there exists an answer for such a kind of opponent, and it is the UAV. never before have militaries had the ability to outlast a enemy with unlimited time, or detect an enemy that can hide in any place
COIN isn’t going away, it’ll only get worse, regardless of what militaries want it to do. and fast jets have simply never been much help in this matter
on the other hand, UAVs are a big help in missions that fast jets normally do. they were a huge help in the “real” wars of Iraq ’90, Bosnia ’99, Afghanistan ’01 and Iraq ’03 (notice how all of these conflict take place in the same area? that’s not a coincidence) when they were just recon planes (not to mention what Israel did with them in the 80’s)
today they combine a fast jet’s weapons load with a UAVs low cost, endurance and expendability, making them a superior alternative for fast jets in “real” wars. we saw some of that potential in Libya, but there they were hardly even used, because they were too valuable in other wars. this while the European countries had serious trouble with the costs of these campaign, often flying missions that UAVs could have done better at a fraction of the price
what modern armies need is a high-low mix, with a handfull of fast, high power jets to “break down the door” and provide air cover, while large numbers of cheap UAVs do what they do best, the “real” work that takes time and patience to be succesful, at dirt cheap prices
this discussion will only get worse: in Europe governments are starting to feel the first effects of the financial disaster they stepped into, and with militaries spending as much as they do and wanting more to switch to the F-35, they’ll be the first to get cut. if the Dutch air force can only afford 20 F-35’s at best, how many will they send against the next Libya, 2 aircraft? this when you can have easily 10 Reaper UAVs for the price of one F-35, each with a mission endurance that outlasts the F-35 several times over and is vital for modern warfare, where the enemy simply waits for you to leave
UAVs will not only allow the Western militaries to maintain their power, but it’ll also make the millions spent “useful” for a change, as they can also provide a lot of help domestically (as Predator UAVs have already proven in the US for fire fighting and border patrol)
Sign In
